 Good to talk, Kansas. That first quote comes from the Broadbasket. Since the Department of Agriculture reformed in 1862, one of the perceived objectives was to preserve the family farm. The number of family farms has dwindled because their economic viability has declined. Realistically, is it still a realistic goal of government to preserve the family farm? Yes, as a matter of fact, I can understand what the problems have been, because agriculture was probably hurt worse in the cost-price squeeze of the recent recession and the inflation than probably any other segment of our society. The land values went up. The interest rates well, so went up. They borrowed excessive amounts of money based on the artificial land value that had been created by inflation. And then when we managed to bring inflation back down, and hopefully they were going to eliminate it entirely, they were left with the depressed land values. But the cost of production rose 45% for the American farmer in just the brief period of a couple of years. And at the same time, the production was such and the booming crops that the prices were depressed. Now, we know that they're going through hardships. We've done a number of things to be of help and are trying to help all that we can. The PIC program was part of that that I think did save a number of farmers. But we, our secretary of agriculture is out on a listening expedition throughout the country hearing the problems of the farmers and their recommendations so that we can come up with a new farm bill in 1985. On the subject of women, in as much as Geraldine Ferraro is on the Democratic ticket, do you think that a GOP victory in November would set back the woman's movement? Not at all. I think this was just a natural thing that could have happened to either party and should have happened. And I am one who has said for some time that I think we are in the near future going to see a woman president in this country. I happen to hope she'll be a Republican woman. And I think that our record would indicate that's very possible. After all, we took the lead in appointing woman to the United States Supreme Court for the first time. It is the first time there have been three women as members of our cabinet. And we have some 1,600 women in very top positions throughout our government here. Those of the, some 4,000 that a president can appoint in our administration, 1,600 of those, are women already and doing fantastic and wonderful jobs. So I don't think a setback of this kind. In fact, the other day, a Democratic senator said the contest now is not whether a woman should be a candidate, it's whether is this the right woman for that particular job? You have appointed Elizabeth Dole, Margaret Heckler, Sandra Day O'Connor, Jean Kirkpatrick, yet there is still a charge of perception by some that you are quote, anti-women. How do you respond to that? I know and it's very frustrating because as governor of California, I was the first one among the 50 governors to start a survey and a search of state statutes and regulations to eliminate any that in their language discriminated against women. We were most successful with that. When I came here to Washington, I instituted the same kind of search at the federal level and then set out to encourage the rest of the governors to do this at a state level. And about half of them right now are changing laws and state statutes and regulations to eliminate this. We have changed a number of them here at the federal level and have more to go. Many of them require legislation to change. We've changed what we can by executive order. And so I don't understand why there should be this attitude except that sometimes I suspect that maybe some of the organized groups out there have a political bias also and are partial to one party over the other. Finally, during the next four years, it's anticipated that the next president will have to fill up to five vacancies on the US Supreme Court. What philosophical criteria will you be basing your decisions on? I want judges who will interpret the law and not legislate and think that their job is to make the law. And I think in recent years, we've had some examples of the court actually taking the job of the legislature and legislating rather than interpreting. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Well, thank you. One more, and we're all finished. Was I fair to you, gals? All right. The last station is Cleveland. Our last station will be Cleveland. You're ready to go? We can go right ahead. All right. Okay. No. For this opportunity, I wanted to ask you this question through the years you've been in office. Why do you want to be present with all of the burdens and responsibilities? Well, the funny thing is, I kind of greet that question with mixed emotions because for all of my life, while I was active in supporting candidates and causes that I believed in, simply because I believed that you have to pay your way and life had been very good to me and the business that I was in gave me some recognition and I could have tracked an audience and help at fundraisers and things. I did that. But I never wanted or thought that I would ever seek public office. Then I was persuaded to for the governor's job in California. And you know, someone has once said that life begins when you begin to serve. And I found there that life did begin. I thought that I would regret leaving the occupation and the profession that I had practiced for so long. But I found it so fulfilling. And now at this stage of my life, I want to continue to serve. Well, I hope you do continue. Let's get us to something else. Is there a truth to the rumor that you're waiting until after the election to increase the taxes? This bothers me a great deal. Let me tell you, there's been a distortion of something I said. Maybe I answered too much of an answer in the press conference some time ago when I spoke about that. No, no plans nor do I believe that we need a tax increase. We're going to reduce the deficits by the way they should be reduced, which is reducing the cost of government. To me, a tax increase is a last resort. My opponent has made it plain that to him it's a first resort. And his record indicates he really feels that way. Now, what I said that was misinterpreted, I tried to explain that if when we have gotten government costs down to the point at which they could not be reduced any farther and government still be able to perform the services it's responsible for, then if the tax policy did not match the outgo, you would have to look and adjust the situation then. But we're nowhere near that. And I am still going to go after what I think is fat in government and get it out of there. And believe me, I have no plans other than this last resort thing that I mentioned if that should turn out to be true someday down the road years from now, I have no intention of asking for a tax increase. President, I also have the same attitude to fact that you do. Only mine has to do with my body, not with taxes. Do you think that Jesse Jackson has increased the importance of the black vote in the United States? Oh, I think he has. I think he's been responsible for one thing, something that maybe the rest of us couldn't have done. And that is to get a great many people who hadn't bothered to participate in the political arena, who hadn't registered to vote, to get them to register and now to participate as voters. I would like to see everybody that is eligible to vote, see them registered and see them voting. That would really be our democracy at work. Over recent years, we've seen declining numbers going to the polls to vote in elections. And I think part of it is because we've just satiated them with political campaigns that run too long and until they seem like they're always hearing about a political campaign, whether at the local or state level or at the national level. And no, I'm glad to see more people registering and getting ready to participate. One final question and this really is a serious one. All nations have beginning to construct more nuclear weapons. Our Defense Department said the other day that our nuclear armament is inadequate and that we will have to increase it more to be competitive. I don't understand it. We spent billions of dollars. They are right about that unless we can persuade the Soviet Union and until we can persuade them to come back to the so-called start and INF talks which are negotiations to reduce the number of weapons on both sides. But we have less nuclear power today than we had 20 years ago. We've withdrawn 1,000 nuclear weapons from Europe and we've planned to withdraw another 1,400. In the last 10 years, the Soviet Union has added 800 ballistic missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles of the MX type that we're seeking to build. We're trying to get permission, is update and modernize with these 100 weapons. Our weapons that we have on hand right now are of such an early generation that the Soviets have produced and deployed about four new generations of weapons while we have produced none. And their weapons have greater accuracy, greater power than our old fashioned would. So we're seeking just 100 MX missiles. I would like that. And thank you very much. Thank you.